Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
maraleia

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Recommended Posts

I am guessing the prosecution cannot reference Josh's pattern of behavior at the bond hearing (or at all going forward)?

  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

7 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

I am guessing the prosecution cannot reference Josh's pattern of behavior at the bond hearing (or at all going forward)?

I think he gets out on a fairly steep bond. I have no clue as to whom the 3rd party will be. I assume he'll also have to wear a tracker. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone else think Josh might be safer in jail instead of out?

  • Like 9
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Joshly is a flight risk...

His family owns a plane, 3 brothers are pilots.

 Sister and BIL lived in Laredo with his family and contacts still residing at the border.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

I am surprised Josh did not make a run for it before 🤷‍♀️
 

Guess he has no $ or just does not care

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Josh is probably thinking that if can convince them to let him go home to "take care of Anna during her pregnancy" that they'll just agree to let the kids be there, because they are his kids. I think Anna would be a terrible choice for the third party,  simply because of the kids. 

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

No way is Anna appointed the 3rd party. I don't think the judge will release him to anyone with access to young children. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coconspirator said:

According to TMZ Smuggar wants to be released so that he can be with Anna while she's pregnant. Surely the feds won't allow her to be his third party and won't allow him to be around his children while on bail. I expect him to be delusional and entitled, I just hope the prosecutors hold the line and burst his little smug bubble. 

Maybe that’s why Josh has kept Anna pregnant all the time. He knew what filth he was involved in and thinks her pregnancy is a hedge against staying in jail. So Anna always pregnant = no jail for Josh whenever the hammer came down.

kidding/not kidding

  • Like 10
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Maybe that’s why Josh has kept Anna pregnant all the time. He knew what filth he was involved in and thinks her pregnancy is a hedge against staying in jail. So Anna always pregnant = no jail for Josh whenever the hammer came down.

kidding/not kidding

I was thinking the same - wife pregnant = more sympathy from judge

  • Like 9
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I think he gets out on a fairly steep bond. I have no clue as to whom the 3rd party will be. I assume he'll also have to wear a tracker. 

Right, but can the prosecution at any time use the past molestation behavior to further argue that Josh is a potential threat to children?

I am guessing that information is not usable since he was a minor.

But it is relevant since his ridiculous lawyers seem to be arguing that "all Josh did was look at CP images- he certainly didn't come into contact with a child..." (which by the way I am shocked his lawyers would argue in this manner but the previous post suggests thats the way they are going for the bond hearing at least)

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, mynextmistake said:

I expect the defense will put forth either Jana (with JB proposing a new address she can live at with Josh during the pendency of the case) or Jed. None of the other kids would be suitable because they have children, and I honestly can’t imagine any of them signing up for this duty anyway. 

Again, collateral damage. Poor Jana has spent a lifetime raising all her younger siblings, and now would have to supervise her one older sibling. All because of choices she did not make. She may finally be in an actual courtship and I’d hate this to ruin her happiness. Jed also is living more independently. They likely are the best choices to harbor Josh, but why should monitoring him be their lives now? So unfair. 

  • Like 16
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

 Sister and BIL lived in Laredo with his family and contacts still residing at the border.

I can’t see Jeremy aiding and abetting the scumbag who sexually assaulted his wife. Jeremy’s family live in the east coast, I forget where but nowhere near Laredo. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SMama said:

I can’t see Jeremy aiding and abetting the scumbag who sexually assaulted his wife. Jeremy’s family live in the east coast, I forget where but nowhere near Laredo. 

Jeremy recently hosted the abuser in his LA home, with his toddler daughter present .

  • Like 4
  • Surprise 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SMama said:

I can’t see Jeremy aiding and abetting the scumbag who sexually assaulted his wife. Jeremy’s family live in the east coast, I forget where but nowhere near Laredo. 

They live in Pennsylvania.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Jeremy recently hosted the abuser in his LA home, with his toddler daughter present .

A questionable decision, to be sure, but letting Josh and family visit and sleep in the driveway is a far cry from aiding and abetting a felon who is fleeing federal court. No way in hell Jeremy is putting his freedom or reputation on the line to help Josh. He probably wouldn’t even do that for his own siblings, and he presumably likes them. 

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

10 minutes ago, SMama said:

I can’t see Jeremy aiding and abetting the scumbag who sexually assaulted his wife. Jeremy’s family live in the east coast, I forget where but nowhere near Laredo. 

His parents live in Downington, Pennsylvania but thought he had other family in Laredo, my mistake.

Maybe his old Grace Community Church on the border would help his famous felon-in-law..haha

 Might sell a few books if Jer could get some publicity....even bad publicity is attention

Edited by humbleopinion
  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MargeGunderson said:

That would stress me out so much. I can’t imagine not having my own money, and being in control of it. I married a guy who is more than happy to let me handle all of that, but the fact that he doesn’t care about it stresses me out too. I could be squirreling away money in an off shore account and he wouldn’t have a clue. (You guys won’t rat me out, will you?)

I have a similar arrangement with my spouse and it does stress me out but it what works best for us so I’m ok with it. The major difference with the Duggar setup is that the money is used to control. That’s called financial domestic abuse. In Anna’s and other Gothard wives cases it’s further compounded with being raised to believe financial and emotional abuse is what God wants for them so it seems normal. Then when the husband does anything wrong it’s ‘look what you made me do. You weren’t a good enough wife. Be a better, more holy wife and we wouldn’t be in this mess’.  It just crushes upon crushes any hope of self esteem. And then that ‘you did this’ mentality transfers to the money as well. I guarantee any money Anna needs will come with major strings attached and the regular reminders of how her failure as a wife has left her in this situation. 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 9

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, woodscommaelle said:

I think the legal term is: fucking disgusting. 

This is very true

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think any of the male in-laws would stick their necks out for Josh. I think they tolerate him at best, but I can't recall a time I've seen Bin, Jeremy, Derick or Austin speak so much as two words to him. They're in an awkward position. If their wives are telling them they've forgiven Josh and moved on, what can they do?

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BitterApple said:

If their wives are telling them they've forgiven Josh and moved on, what can they do?

I guess it comes down to whether they believe poor Josh has been framed or if he's guilty as sin.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

That would stress me out so much. I can’t imagine not having my own money, and being in control of it. I married a guy who is more than happy to let me handle all of that, but the fact that he doesn’t care about it stresses me out too. I could be squirreling away money in an off shore account and he wouldn’t have a clue. (You guys won’t rat me out, will you?)

Other side of the coin here, so to speak. I have always been in charge of the family finances. Husband gives me his paycheck every week. Actually, in our entire soon-to-be 34 years of marriage, he has never signed a paycheck. I sign his name and my name underneath. The last checks he ever signed were our wedding money checks. BUT... I always show him our checking/savings account balances. No hidden money, no off shore accounts. I do, however, have my scratch-off lottery winnings hidden away in the cookie jar... but he knows about that. 🤷🏼‍♀️ That system works for us. 

Oh! And if we need extra money... we get it from the cookie jar!

Edited by Westiepeach
  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

What kind of lawyer did Jim-Bob hire for Josh, that is asking to have his client, charged with sending and receiving child pornography, to be allowed to be released to the home that he shares with his pregnant wife and six children under twelve? 

  • Like 6
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I don't think any of the male in-laws would stick their necks out for Josh. I think they tolerate him at best, but I can't recall a time I've seen Bin, Jeremy, Derick or Austin speak so much as two words to him. They're in an awkward position. If their wives are telling them they've forgiven Josh and moved on, what can they do?

They can refuse to have their own children near Josh. They are the headships, after all.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

dr2dyuedl6x61.jpg

But how do they know that he never had any interaction with children around him? They would just believe him if he said he never? This confuses me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

They can refuse to have their own children near Josh. They are the headships, after all.

I have no idea why the Vuolos agreed to the California visit. I don’t think either Jinger or Jeremy like Josh or Anna, and having the Joads come to town and camp in your driveway is not particularly representative of the young Christian hipster image the Vuolos seem to be trying to cultivate. I sort of assumed Jim Bob had a hand in it.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

I have no idea why the Vuolos agreed to the California visit. I don’t think either Jinger or Jeremy like Josh or Anna, and having the Joads come to town and camp in your driveway is not particularly representative of the young Christian hipster image the Vuolos seem to be trying to cultivate. I sort of assumed Jim Bob had a hand in it.

Boob definitely had a hand in it. He was there. 

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, mittsigirl said:

But how do they know that he never had any interaction with children around him? They would just believe him if he said he never? This confuses me.

 

The statement was just about the indictment. In the scope of the investigation it was only the CP. Of course he's admitted to it in his past but that would be for the judge to decide if it matters (if it's legally even allowed to.) The statement was legally correct and specific that the indictment does not say it. 

 

I don't believe them but there are 'look but don't touch' pedo groups that's inspired countless SVU characters. 

Edited by Gigi43
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

I have no idea why the Vuolos agreed to the California visit. I don’t think either Jinger or Jeremy like Josh or Anna, and having the Joads come to town and camp in your driveway is not particularly representative of the young Christian hipster image the Vuolos seem to be trying to cultivate. I sort of assumed Jim Bob had a hand in it.

Money. JB controls it, since he can't trust the Sex Pest to stay home by himself, Jeremy's choice was to suck it up or go without.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nysha said:

Money. JB controls it, since he can't trust the Sex Pest to stay home by himself, Jeremy's choice was to suck it up or go without.

Was that Jingle’s surprise birthday party?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Westiepeach said:

Was that Jingle’s surprise birthday party?

No. I think they were there in the fall. Jinger's birthday is in December.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

I have no idea why the Vuolos agreed to the California visit. I don’t think either Jinger or Jeremy like Josh or Anna, and having the Joads come to town and camp in your driveway is not particularly representative of the young Christian hipster image the Vuolos seem to be trying to cultivate. I sort of assumed Jim Bob had a hand in it.

I think it was taped for TLC. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Could Josh be released to live with Anna if the kids were staying at the big house and he and Anna are in the warehouse? It's the same property, isn't it? Given the wording of the living arrangements and "no children under 12", does the wording apply to the building or to the property? Because I would think the prosecutor (no idea if that's the right term, I'm Canadian) could argue that with so many children under 12 living on that property it would be really difficult to ensure Josh is always supervised when children are around.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

Did CPS conduct an investigation that hasn't been revealed? It's crazy that a judge would release Josh into the community without interviewing every child that resides on TTH property. The fact is Josh does have a history of inappropriate behavior with children. Just because it's not listed in the indictment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Did CPS conduct an investigation that hasn't been revealed? It's crazy that a judge would release Josh into the community without interviewing every child that resides on TTH property. The fact is Josh does have a history of inappropriate behavior with children. Just because it's not listed in the indictment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

 Joy. Was. Five.

  • Like 12
  • Sad 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, galaxygirl76 said:

 Joy. Was. Five.

Exactly and the material Josh was caught with was "child under 12." It's a pretty ballsy move on the attorney's part, IMO. 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve checked out of this for the last week since I figured no news until the bond hearing.

Has anyone seen the full motion for bond? I prefer the actual legal document rather than news articles about it.

From the summary above they seem to have made exactly the standard form argument I’d expect — just bc he looks at porn doesn’t mean he harms kids + pregnant wife at home needing care + you can trust them they’re a famous family in this town.

However it’s already been said at the initial hearing that any living situation can’t involve kids. I don’t see the judge suddenly being cool with him being with 6 minor children who likely have not been interviewed with bc the thing he’s being accused of IS a crime against children. It’s not just that doing something physical is a crime against children.

As for the pregnant wife thing, I see no judicial sympathy there either. Often judges ask well does your wife have someone to go with her to the dr, to take her to the hospital if she goes into labor tonight, to watch the other kids if she’s in the hospital, and to take care of her for say 2 weeks when she comes home w a newborn with 6 other kids at home? In his case he has 80000000 family members right there, he can’t say no.

I’m not saying bond will be denied. In fact I think he’ll be allowed to post a steep bond and leave with strict monitoring (ankle bracket that is used for supervised release). But I don’t see him going back to his house with Anna + 6 kids and like dozens of siblings/siblings kids a few hundred feet away. JB better clear up a warehouse someplace else for him.

  • Like 16
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, cereality said:

I’ve checked out of this for the last week since I figured no news until the bond hearing.

Has anyone seen the full motion for bond? I prefer the actual legal document rather than news articles about it.

From the summary above they seem to have made exactly the standard form argument I’d expect — just bc he looks at porn doesn’t mean he harms kids + pregnant wife at home needing care + you can trust them they’re a famous family in this town.

However it’s already been said at the initial hearing that any living situation can’t involve kids. I don’t see the judge suddenly being cool with him being with 6 minor children who likely have not been interviewed with bc the thing he’s being accused of IS a crime against children. It’s not just that doing something physical is a crime against children.

As for the pregnant wife thing, I see no judicial sympathy there either. Often judges ask well does your wife have someone to go with her to the dr, to take her to the hospital if she goes into labor tonight, to watch the other kids if she’s in the hospital, and to take care of her for say 2 weeks when she comes home w a newborn with 6 other kids at home? In his case he has 80000000 family members right there, he can’t say no.

I’m not saying bond will be denied. In fact I think he’ll be allowed to post a steep bond and leave with strict monitoring (ankle bracket that is used for supervised release). But I don’t see him going back to his house with Anna + 6 kids and like dozens of siblings/siblings kids a few hundred feet away. JB better clear up a warehouse someplace else for him.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.18.0.pdf

I think this is it.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

What @cerealityisaid! 

And yes, I've seen the court papers. They are arguing that nothing happened in the 19 months since the raid, so why would anything happen now? They also contend that he's not a flight risk because he'd be easily recognized. 😂

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

So they plan to argue (later) that his constitutional rights were violated at the time of the search?

Screen Shot 2021-05-04 at 10.45.30 PM.png

  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, Tuxcat said:

So they plan to argue (later) that his constitutional rights were violated at the time of the search?

Screen Shot 2021-05-04 at 10.45.30 PM.png

Likely yes. I’m not a constitutional lawyer at all but this sounds like a set up for - this search wasn’t conducted properly (either the IPhone or the computer or both) so any evidence coming from these search is inadmissible. That sounds like an argument Jim Bob came up with. Reality is if they had a warrant, they had already gone to court to show probable cause of a crime — the search was fine. What Josh could have done is denied consent to search until they showed him or his atty probable cause - they would have cooled their jets long enough to send the warrant to the atty who’d then tell him he must cooperate - but he didn’t know to do that.

 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

They also contend that he's not a flight risk because he'd be easily recognized. 😂

He may be a celebrity of sorts in NW Arkansas. If he drove over to NYC and I passed him on the sidewalk, I wouldn’t recognize him even though I’ve watched the show. With a mask on, he’d be even more anonymous. 
I think if I asked all my family and friends if they knew who Josh Duggar was, the answers would range from “Who”? to “ is that the family with like a lot of kids?”

 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

As a non legal matter, what do you suppose Anna has told her kids? They have to be asking where daddy went; if they know he’s in jail then they have to be asking why. And assuming Anna is not in isolation with them and isn’t answering their questions to their satisfaction, there’s got to be one kid who is persistent asking anyone he sees from Aunt Jana to Grandpa to Uncle JD. What do you say when the crime is one involving looking at kids THEIR age??? Do you just play the - God is testing daddy’s and all our faith - and refuse to give details?

  • Like 9
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

So they plan to argue (later) that his constitutional rights were violated at the time of the search?

Screen Shot 2021-05-04 at 10.45.30 PM.png

I thought after the Ashley Madison thing,  that  Josh was only allowed a plain old flip phone? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Arkay said:

I think if I asked all my family and friends if they knew who Josh Duggar was, the answers would range from “Who”? to “ is that the family with like a lot of kids?”

There are more people in NWA who'd have that reaction than you think. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, cereality said:

Likely yes. I’m not a constitutional lawyer at all but this sounds like a set up for - this search wasn’t conducted properly (either the IPhone or the computer or both) so any evidence coming from these search is inadmissible. That sounds like an argument Jim Bob came up with. Reality is if they had a warrant, they had already gone to court to show probable cause of a crime — the search was fine. What Josh could have done is denied consent to search until they showed him or his atty probable cause - they would have cooled their jets long enough to send the warrant to the atty who’d then tell him he must cooperate - but he didn’t know to do that.

 

It sounds like they are going to be throwing a lot of things at the wall in this case. Looking for anything to stick.

Surely the agents weren't supposed to let him hang on to his phone for a few minutes before seizing it. Can you imagine Josh saying, "oh you wanted my iPhone too? Uh hold on, I have to make a call."

2 minutes ago, beckie said:

I thought after the Ashley Madison thing,  that  Josh was only allowed a plain old flip phone? 

Right!

3 minutes ago, cereality said:

As a non legal matter, what do you suppose Anna has told her kids? They have to be asking where daddy went; if they know he’s in jail then they have to be asking why. And assuming Anna is not in isolation with them and isn’t answering their questions to their satisfaction, there’s got to be one kid who is persistent asking anyone he sees from Aunt Jana to Grandpa to Uncle JD. What do you say when the crime is one involving looking at kids THEIR age??? Do you just play the - God is testing daddy’s and all our faith - and refuse to give details?

I can't even imagine what they are telling those kids.

Edited by Tuxcat
  • Like 1
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Surely the agents weren't supposed to let him hang on to his phone for a few minutes before seizing it. Can you imagine Josh saying, "oh you wanted my iPhone too? Uh hold on, I have to make a call."

"Mmkay let me delete some incriminating shit off here first. I need to call my attorney!" 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the "car lot." Not much room for Smuggar and the "sleazy ex-con" to fit in there. And would you trust a sleazy ex con with your computer? Yeah, didn't think so...

 

image.png.ec421ed426db14e30cb6f096681f2a4c.png

  • Useful 7
  • Laugh 15
  • Surprise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Scarlett45

Guidelines for the thread:

Charges have been made public that specifically name possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material, discussion of charges are allowed. However, discussion of victims, or possible victims (and their identities) related to these charges are NOT ALLOWED
We are not here to provide content for ghoulish rubbernecking- there is no need to discuss the graphic details related to these charges, the moderators are not going to police posts for graphic content- posts will be removed and violators will be warned. Do not attempt to circumvent this guideline with spoiler tags.

You MAY discuss the 2015 scandals, and any statement a NOW ADULT victim has made public as previously instructed, but speculation on unnamed victims or minor victims is NOT allowed. 

Jokes, asides, memes etc regarding the sexual assault of anyone, INCLUDING Josh Duggar are not allowed.

As of May 10, 2021: Please respect the privacy of the Reber family, discussion of their social media postings, public statements to the press/court testimony are acceptable. Discussion of their activities on their property, their schedule, where/how they run their errands not acceptable. Again, discussion of social media/court statements/public statements to the press- FINE, "So and So saw the Rebers standing in their yard/grocery shopping/getting gas"- NOT fine. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size